Aam Aadmi Party national convenor Arvind Kejriwal on Monday informed the Delhi High Court that he will not appear before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case, declaring that his “hope of getting justice” from the judge stands “shattered”.
The development comes days after the High Court rejected a plea by Kejriwal and others seeking the judge’s recusal, marking a sharp escalation in the ongoing legal and political battle linked to the controversial excise policy case.
In a letter addressed to Justice Sharma, Kejriwal said he would neither appear in person nor be represented through legal counsel. “My hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta is shattered. Therefore, I have decided to follow Gandhiji’s Satyagraha. I have made a decision based on the voice of my conscience,” he wrote, according to party sources.
Seeking to clarify his stance, Kejriwal said the letter was not an act of defiance. “This letter is not written in anger, nor in disrespect… it is written with pain, humility, and abiding faith in the role of the judiciary,” he stated, adding that the issue at hand touches “upon a larger and more enduring question — the faith of ordinary citizens in the impartiality of the judicial process”.
He, however, expressed serious doubts about the fairness of further proceedings. “This understanding itself now makes it impossible for me to believe that I can receive a hearing which appears impartial in this Court,” he said.
Kejriwal added that he would retain the option of challenging any decision before the Supreme Court. “I will reserve the right to appeal Justice Swarn Kanta’s decision in the Supreme Court,” the letter stated.
#WATCH | AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal releases a video, he says, “My hope of receiving justice from Justice Swarnkanta Sharma Ji has been shattered. Listening to the voice of my conscience, adhering to the principles of Gandhi Ji, and with the spirit of Satyagraha, I… pic.twitter.com/jOTxvyfOHd
— ANI (@ANI) April 27, 2026
BJP hits back, accuses Kejriwal of ‘insulting Constitution and Gandhi’
Reacting sharply, BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla accused the Aam Aadmi Party of undermining constitutional institutions and misusing Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy.
“This is an insult to the Constitution, an insult to the judiciary — this has become the identity of the Aam Aadmi Party. AAP now stands for ‘more and more propaganda’,” Poonawalla said.
He alleged that Kejriwal had earlier run a “hit-and-run propaganda” campaign against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and questioned his refusal to appear after the plea was dismissed.
“When the judiciary did not bow before him, he now says he will follow Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha and not appear because he has no faith in the judiciary,” he said.
Poonawalla also took objection to invoking Gandhi in the present context. “First of all, do not insult Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was against liquor, and you carried out a liquor scam,” he remarked.
Drawing a comparison with India’s freedom struggle, he added, “Mahatma Gandhi’s non-cooperation and civil disobedience movements were against the British. Does India’s judiciary look British to you? This is also an insult to the Constitution and to Dr BR Ambedkar.”
He further alleged that such reactions reflect a pattern. “Whenever a constitutional institution does not act according to their wishes or gives a verdict against them — be it elections or the judiciary — they question it, cast doubts, and try to create mistrust. This has become their standard operating procedure,” he said.
HC had dismissed recusal plea with sharp remarks
On April 20, the Delhi High Court dismissed petitions filed by Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma from hearing matters related to the excise policy case.
The plea had argued that the empanelment of the judge’s children as Central Government counsel created a perceived conflict of interest and a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Rejecting the contention, the court held that the allegations were speculative and did not meet the legal threshold required to establish bias. It made strong observations against attempts to question judicial impartiality without evidence.
“The courtroom cannot become a theatre of perception,” the court said, cautioning that even influential political figures cannot level allegations against a sitting judge without material proof.
‘Insinuations cannot guide recusal’: Court
Justice Sharma observed that the arguments were based on “insinuations and aspersions” rather than verifiable facts, and warned that accepting such claims would set a damaging precedent.
The court stressed that a judge cannot be asked to step aside merely on the basis of a litigant’s apprehension of an unfavourable outcome, noting that “justice cannot be managed through perception.”
In a related direction, the High Court also ordered the removal of social media links carrying details of the April 13 proceedings in the recusal matter.